Witnesses reported seeing the Aerostar 601P flying slowly toward the airport near Austin, Texas, at a low altitude.
The left engine was at a low rpm and witnesses reported hearing “sputtering,” “knocking,” or making a “banging” noise, while seeing trailing black smoke.
One witness said that, as the airplane passed over him, he saw the tail “kick” horizontally to the right and the airplane bank slightly left.
The plane subsequently collided with trees and hit a field 1/2 mile north of the airport. The pilot died in the crash.
Disassembly of the right engine revealed no anomalies, and signatures on the right propeller blades were consistent with power and rotation on impact.
The left propeller was found feathered. Disassembly of the left engine revealed that the spark plugs were black and heavily carbonized, consistent with a rich fuel-air mixture; the exhaust tubing also exhibited dark sooting.
The rubber boot that connected the intercooler to the fuel injector servo was found dislodged and partially sucked in toward the servo. The clamp used to secure the hose was loose but remained around the servo, the safety wire on the clamp was in place, and the clamp was not damaged or bent.
The condition of the boot and the clamp were consistent with improper installation.
The time since the last overhaul of the left engine was about 1,050 hours. The last 100-hour inspection occurred three months before the accident, and the airplane had been flown only 0.8 hour since then. It could not be determined when the rubber boot was improperly installed.
Although the left engine had failed, the pilot should have been able to fly the airplane and maintain altitude on the operable right engine, particularly since he had appropriately feathered the left engine.
The NTSB determined the probable cause as the pilot’s failure to maintain sufficient clearance from trees during the single-engine landing approach. Contributing to the accident was the loss of power in the left engine due to an improperly installed rubber boot that became dislodged and was then partially sucked into the fuel injector servo, which caused an excessively rich fuel-air mixture that would not support combustion.
NTSB Identification: CEN14FA494
This September 2014 accident report is provided by the National Transportation Safety Board. Published as an educational tool, it is intended to help pilots learn from the misfortunes of others.
Looks like what brought down the Aerostar was not just the bad mechanic..but the bad pilot..Stars have a high MCA of 100 mph but with the one engine working, If a pilot, a real pilot on board you can bring it back to a safe landing on any 2,500 feet runway..Specially when light load of only one on board..but…nooooo..why practice those hard things??..nooooo…Cowards,,just licensed cowards and Pilot Posers buying airplanes..
Pilot Posers are the problem..Those airplanes are irreplaceable GA jewels..loved my Aerostar…Flew night cargo, on any weather…I hate to see Pilot Posers buying them just to park them and boast about instead of flying or let a real pilot fly them for business….then they clods destroy them..Dam pigs..
Man, I hate Pilot Posers…They are the USA GA cancer..They are eating airplanes up every day..Look down to any Pilot Poser..In many countries they do..I was born in the Antilles.. They give the finger
to Pilot Posers most countries..In USA they admire them..They admire Ownership more than Airmanship..That is for Idiots…for Crooksuckers..
As long as USA allow Pig Pilots Posers, USA GA will continue its downward spiral..And easy to fly C172’s will cost half a million dollars due manufacturers insurance againts the bad pilots USA GA has..I retired…better jump ship than sail with pigs…Never sail with pigs..
Bill is not even a pilot! he’s just playing the
psychology game– a chimp in a different suit?
vic
Fly the thing all the way to the crash site. Looks like the pilot was busy reading his ’emergency procedures’ instead of flying the ship. Altitude can easily be converted to airspeed when you think about it it’s money in the bank.
Mr. Bill, It would be appreciated if you can’t contribute anything possitive don’t. That crap about gravity, well you can stick that up your ying yang. Because gravity only works if we allow it to, end of story.
Poor headline…GRAVITY is what brings down any aircraft on planet earth…..period !!!!
What contributed to the aircraft not landing where the PIC wanted to land…multiple items….. But GRAVITY is what brought the aircraft down to earth.
Bill, if your frequent suggestion were followed, every article would have the headline “Gravity brings down plane”. How useful would that be? E.g. Hey Joe, did you see the article on general aviation news entitled “Gravity brings down plane”? And he’ll say “which one, the one from today, the one from yesterday? The one from 2 days ago, the one from 3 days ago?…” You get the idea. Personally, I think the headlines do a great job of very accurately and efficiently capturing the gist of the article.
I seriously think there is something mentally wrong with you to think that your contribution to these comments is ever useful. Especially after having been repeatedly told by many folks to cut it out already. Do you REALLY think you’re helping? Have EVER made a positive contribution here?
So please, please, please, STOP posting your “gravity brings down airplane” comments (do you just have a macro on your keyboard to insert that comment with one keystroke?), and keep the space open for something that may actually benefit fellow flyers. We’re here trying to learn things that will help us be safer pilots. Your comments just annoy us. So unless you have something useful to say, zip it!
Bill, I believe the intent of these articles to create constructive conversation that helps general aviation (learning from mistakes of others). I do not believe your comment does that. Now I am all for playing devils advocate on the accident reports here such as going against what the NTSB stated as the cause such as saying “according to the article this pilot should have had no problem landing the aircraft should he been proficient,” but in my opinion your comment adds no value to said conversation.
I will give you some tips I use when commenting on these articles though. The most important thing is to learn from the article to help make general aviation and yourself safer. It is ok to have an opinion that may not be popular, but you must provide some additional details to your argument to help the other readers in at least considering your side of the argument. It doesn’t matter who is right or wrong what matters is it gets us all thinking to help make general aviation better/safer.